Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!cunixf.cc.columbia.edu!cunixb.cc.columbia.edu!sss10
From: sss10@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Napalm)
Subject: Re: Wake Up Commodore!
Message-ID: <1991Mar21.040442.335@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu>
Sender: usenet@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (The Network News)
Nntp-Posting-Host: cunixb.cc.columbia.edu
Reply-To: sss10@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Napalm)
Organization: Columbia University
References: <1991Mar20.194243.11450@news.iastate.edu> <1991Mar20.224125.10689@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> <1991Mar21.012514.16805@news.iastate.edu>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 91 04:04:42 GMT

In article <1991Mar21.012514.16805@news.iastate.edu> xgr39@CCVAX.IASTATE.EDU writes:
>In article <1991Mar20.224125.10689@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu>, es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) writes:
>>In article <1991Mar20.194243.11450@news.iastate.edu> xgr39@CCVAX.IASTATE.EDU writes:
>>>
>>>  Unfortunately, Commodore isn't exactly in a hurry to redesign the 
>>>custom chips.  Commodore has not been investing enough in research and
>>>development for the past five years, and recently slashed what little
>>>they were investing.  Thus, I would not expect any improvements at all
>>>in the Amiga's color, graphics, sound, or floppy I/O capabilities for
>>>at least three years, minimum.  No 24-bit color, no 8-bitplanes, no
>>>improvements.  
>>>
>>	What they've been in a hurry to do neither of us know,
>>and I do agree that they aren't spending as much as they should
>>on R&D, but where the hell do you get the info that Commodore has
>>SLASHED R&D? It has not decreased since I've been following the
>>stock. It has increased all throughout. Admittedly it is low but
>>NOTHING has been slashed.
>
>   It has been slashed as a percentage of total sales.  For the fiscal
>year 1990, Commodore invested 3.5% of their total sales in research and
>development.  According to Commodore's Third Quarter Report, for the
>first three quarters of fiscal year 1991, Commodore invested 2.2%
>(approximately) of their total sales in research and devlopment.  If
>this is not a slash, I don't know what is.

you are right. you dont know what is. If sales increases faster than the 
amount spent on R&D, you will get those results. How is that the same as
slashing?
just pulling numbers out of the blue but lets take a look:

Sales:              R&D:                 Pct:       Year #
1000                 20                   2%         1
2000                 40                   2%         2
4000                 40                   1%         3
2000                 40                   2%         4


from years 2 and 3, the pct that company X <cbm in this example> invested in
R&D has decreased, but they did not cut anything. they spent the same amount 
of money on R&D. Where is the slashing?
>
>                                   -MB-
>
>>
>>	-- Ethan
>>
>>
>>A tourist in New York City was overheard asking a New Yorker,
>>
>>	"Excuse me, can you tell me how to get to the statue of
>>liberty, or should I go f*ck myself?"